Actually the lead writer for GW jumped ship some years back (Richard Lindzen) and said they have nothing, not even an atmospheric model.

LOL Lead writer?

You mean the thousands of credible scientists that have written articles and published reports and done the science and have real, actual hard data?
U m...lead writer? Like one guy? LOL Wow. You need to get out more. Just sayin.

While I do not doubt climate change (it's been changing for billions of years) I am also aware of certain aspects that call into question many of the
conclusions.

Data has been manipulated and of this, there is no doubt. Data manipulation has all been one sided, to support man's involvement and influence in the
climate change.

There is the case of the weakening magnetosphere, which clearly affects the amount of radiation that enters our atmosphere. This weakening (approx 15%
weaker) has been in progress since about the same time as the beginning of the industrial revolution.

Any model that does not take this into consideration (and they do not...any of them) is skewed to begin with, provided we actually had a solid
understanding of all the affects on our climate, both quantitatively as well as qualitatively.

It is clear that our climate change (global warming) models are not accurate and anyone who states differently is either intentionally ignorant of the
subject or just plain ignorant.

The current models (see above) failed to predict of number of effects we have seen in the last 14 years. One such effect is the growth of the
Antarctica ice.

Also consider that grants are not handed out to people disproving man's involvement in climate change, but there is a ton of money available for
those wishing to support man's role. So...if you wished to secure a grant to study climate change, which direction would your hypotheses lean?

Therefore, given the fact that we cannot construct a model that accurately predicts climate change and intentionally(?) leave out such major
components as the strength of the magnetosphere I can only draw one conclusion:

You've got yourself all confused it seems. Models are only good for predictions, not for proof.

Since it has already been proven that increased CO2 levels will increase radiative forcing, there is no debate left, we know we are causing a problem,
it's a fact. Now all we can do is create models that predict how fast or how slow the problem is going to manifest. These models will not be
perfect (and will constantly be changed) because of the vast amount of variables to account for (and data that we don't fully have). However we
don't really need the models for anything other than to help minimize the issues the problem will cause, and or to figure out a time frame.

It seems your doubts are based on the idea that we need models to prove the existence of the problem. That is not the case. We don't base our facts
on models. We base them on scientific experiments and observations. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and plays a major part in our atmosphere, and helps keep
Earth warm at night because of radiative forcing. Increasing CO2 will increase radiative forcing. Those are scientific facts backed by experiments,
observations, and mathematics.

The "manipulated data" you speak of is mostly misunderstandings and or mistakes. The data that many scientists have to work with is not perfect,
and many things need to be adjusted to make sense of it all. Those adjustments then become a weak point for errors and mistakes, and a talking point
for conspiracies by people who just don't understand. We get a lot of temperature data from tree rings, which is not perfect data. We get a lot of
CO2 readings from ice core samples, which too is not perfect data. Data from nature is not perfect because of other variables that can affect the
data, and on paper these imperfections can cause problems in models and predictions.

However, the data is not even needed to prove the existence of the problem. It's only needed for the models and predictions. The problem has
already been proven to exist.

So when you say there is problems with the data, and problems with the models, so therefor we can't prove the problem exists... You can't be more
backwards.

Let me just begin by saying that if we had all the answers, our models would be accurate...or at least closer than they are. The fact that we cannot
predict worth a bent penny displays the ignorance (I do not mean that in a derogatory fashion) that exists and the lack of understanding of how our
climate system works.

If the debate were over, then it would not be theory, but just fact.

I will present a possible alternative to man made (keep in mind I do not exempt man from being at least partially responsible) climate change.

If the magnetosphere weakening is 100% responsible (a supposition for argument sake) and the weakening began roughly the same time as the industrial
revolution, how would we separate one effect from the other?

You are all sold on co2, and that is the beginning of a good argument. If the climate has been warming due to the increasingly weak magnetic field,
then it follows that the oceans have been warming as well. As oceans warm they also release increasingly larger amounts of co2 stored, no?

Therefore, if the magnetic field were the sole affect responsible for warming then we would expect to see increased levels of co2. Then you get a
positive feedback situation going..one that will result in additional greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere: methane by the thousands of
metric tons. That is the real danger.

My argument is that given the 15% weaker magnetic field has a huge effect on the radiation reaching the earth that you cannot attribute climate change
to man, at least solely. To attribute climate change to man's activities solely is not only disingenuous but is false to a, virtually, criminal level.
Do you ever hear these climate change bishops mention the magnetosphere and it's affect on the climate? Hmm...no. Why? Perhaps because there is no
money to be made there. Follow the money and it raises some suspicions, or should, about some people pushing the climate change (formerly known as
global warming) religion.

I have no doubt that man has had an affect on climate change. I also have no doubt that we cannot, with current faulty climate models, accurately
predict climate change. Nor can we truly know exactly how much of an effect man has had...specially when those scientists are not being honest with
us. Leaving out critical affects such as the magnetosphere from the discussion altogether suggests an agenda and spin.

Therefore, by the simple definition of scientific method, we cannot claim to truly understand it and to claim otherwise is man's ignorance, once
again, in motion.

To any thinking individual this debate is far from over. When a working model that can predict with some accuracy future climate change (or even past
climate change by plugging in the correct historical data) then I will accept whatever verdicts are presented.

As stated: The failure to, with any accuracy, predict anything, whether historical or future, invalidates any claims made. The claims may be
true...but the proof is not there. Exercise scientific method and then tell me we actually have a clue.

The steps of the scientific method are to:
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results

Secondly...no where do you see me deny that a problem exists. The biggest problem we face is the melting of the tundra which will release an ungodly
amount of methane into the atmosphere.

The processes that result in climate change are complex, to say the least. I may not be a climatologist but I do have education and training in the
field of geology. So I am very aware of the history of pre-history climate change. I also know for a fact that people like Al Gore who stand there
telling one inconvenient lie after another does not help your position. When you look at the period when diversity of life was at it's greatest you
will find co2 levels that were higher than today's and average temperatures that were higher than todays.

This does not suggest the end of mankind. Mankind came closest to extinction during glaciation. What the above does suggest is that we will be
severely inconvenienced by rising ocean levels and by changing drought areas as well as areas getting more rain. Do we suggest that man is not capable
of adapting? I think we will be perfectly capable of adapting.

I also believe that if the weakened magnetosphere is responsible for a major portion of the climate change we have seen then there is nothing man can
do to reverse the change. It also does not bode well for holding the status quo. If there is one thing that is a fact about past climate change, if
there is one constant, it is that the climate will change....continually. Whether man is involved or not.

When you consider the growing ice coverage in Antarctica do the climatologists really have a handle on wtf is going on? That one was not predicted by
their climate models...not only did the models not predict growth, but they predicted a retreat. Ooops.

Ergo...they do not have a clue and are blowing smoke out their ying yangs.

I find the following paragraph to be ludicrous and a prime example of how the religion of climate change will disavow any concept or fact which does
not fit it's preconceived notions:

It seems your doubts are based on the idea that we need models to prove the existence of the problem. That is not the case. We don't base our facts on
models. We base them on scientific experiments and observations. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and plays a major part in our atmosphere, and helps keep
Earth warm at night because of radiative forcing. Increasing CO2 will increase radiative forcing. Those are scientific facts backed by experiments,
observations, and mathematics.

So...what you are saying is that just because, for example, we cannot construct experiments that prove E=M2C (energy = mass squared times speed of
light) that that is nothing to be concerned about. Models (experiments) that do not support observed phenomena are to be discounted simply because
they fly in the face of what we "believe" to be the case. (for those who missed it...the formula is actually E=MCsquared)

Wow...how utterly scientific of you (?).

If a "model" cannot describe observable phenomena then one MUST revisit and revise one's hypothesis. Period. This is not debatable unless one prefers
to re-enter a flat-earth type mode of thinking.

From my standpoint, I am not disavowing the existence of a problem and I never have. I question the degree that man has played in "the problem". I
maintain that our climate models are faulty. I maintain that there are other forces at play, that have been in play since earth first gained an
atmosphere. Forces that we do not fully comprehend their effect on such a complex system such as climate.

This is not saying we should turn a blind eye and believe we can set off nukes willy nilly without affecting the climate, or that we can burn oil
willy nilly and not expect to have some affect on climate. What I am saying is that accepting current climate models and our understanding of the
effects we see and expect to see is equivalent to blind obedience in a faith.

I personally believe that while man has had an effect on climate, we do not have the ability to (what we would describe as) affect change in a
positive manner. I believe that man's influence has been of a minor part...just as any attempt to "reverse" would be minor and unsuccessful.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.